Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite DUDER v. McGLYNN BAKERIES, INC., 669 N.W.2d 344.

25 citing documents.

Michael Sarff, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
A transaction that is void ab 8 initio is “of no legal effect” or “null.” Onvoy, Inc. v. SHAL, LLC, n.9 (Minn. 2003).
Cleveland-Cliffs Minnesota Land Development LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Onvoy, Inc. v. SHAL, LLC
Joy Litke, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Generally, arbitration clauses are contractual and cannot be enforced by persons who are not parties to the contract.” Onvoy, Inc. v. SHAL, LLC, .
Karol M. Provost, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
See Rodgers, d at 667 (reversing a grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim because 1 “Minnesota courts must apply the FAA [(Federal Arbitration Act)] to transactions that affect interstate commerce.” Onvoy, Inc. v. SHAL, LLC
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Onvoy, Inc. v. SHAL, LLC
Pamela Maslowski, Minn. 2023
Advisers, Inc., 322 abrogated on other grounds by Onvoy, Inc. v. SHAL, LLC
Ryan Lynch, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
We note, however, that “Minnesota courts must apply the FAA to transactions that affect interstate commerce.” Onvoy, Inc. v. SHAL, LLC, see Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson, 513 U.S. 265, 274 (1995) (describing the FAA’s reach “expansively as coinciding with that of the Commerce Clause”).
Glacier Park Iron Ore Properties, LLC, Minn. 2021
The court of appeals held that the MRUAA supersedes the “reasonably debatable” overruled by Onvoy, Inc. v. SHAL, LLC , 1 and thus the district court decides arbitrability unless the 1 In Atcas, a case arising under Minnesota’s arbitration statute , Minn. Stat. §§ 572.08–.09 (1971) , we said that “if the intention of the parties is reasonably debatable as to the scope of the arbitration clause, the issue of arbitrab
Special School District No.1, Minneapolis Public Schools, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Faith Technologies, Inc., Respondent, Biosar America, LLC, Respondent, Frattalone Companies, Inc., et al., Plaintiffs, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
6 when waiver occurs, see Onvoy, Inc. v. SHAL, LLC , (providing that appellate courts review arbitration clauses, such as JAMS rules, de novo).
Nancy Leppink, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Advisers, Inc. , abrogated on other grounds by Onvoy, Inc. v. SHAL, LLC, Thompson v. Barnes
Jacqueline E. Heintz individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Ada L. Colvin, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Onvoy, Inc. v. SHAL, LLC , -54 (Minn. 2003) (“[P]arties may not be compelled to arbitrate claims if they have alleged that the contract at issue never legally existed.”).
Dennis Lougee, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
But Lougee’s sole citation in support of this proposition is to a concurring opinion stating that waiver of certain constitutional rights should not be “lightly presumed.” See Onvoy, Inc. v. SHAL, LLC , -59 (Minn. 2003) 11 (Anderson, Paul H., J., concurring) (“[W]aiver of [the right of access to the courts and the right to trial by jury] is not to be lightly presumed.”).
Rodgers v. Silva 920 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Onvoy, Inc. v. SHAL, LLC , , 349 (Minn. 2003).
Adherent Laboratories, Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
More importantly, “[i]n analyzing arbitration clauses, courts should enforce privately negotiated agreements to arbitr ate, like other contracts, in accordance with their terms.” Onvoy, Inc. v. SHAL, LLC , (quotation omitted).
Laymon v. Minnesota Premier Properties, LLC 903 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Advisers, Inc., 602 (Minn. 1982) (reversing order denying default judgment and remanding for entry of default judgment where district court abused its discretion by denying default judgment), abrogated on other grounds by Onvoy, Inc. v. SHAL, LLC
Minnkota Architectural Products Co., Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Onvoy, Inc. v. SHAL, LLC
Fern Hill Place Retail Association, Inc. v. Fern Hill Place Homeowners Association, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
And, the Minnesota Supreme Court has warned that “[p]arties who want the courts to retain jurisdiction over matters of contract formation, or any other particular issues they foresee may arise in the business relationship, must expressly state such an intent when drafting the arbitration clause in the contract.” Onvoy Inc. v. SHAL, LLC
Jeremy Ray Johnson v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Advisers, Inc., (holding that an issue is not proper for consideration on appeal where the trial court did not have the opportunity to consider the issue), abrogated on other grounds by Onvoy, Inc. v. SHAL, LLC
Steven Charles Lind v. William Guenther Minn. Ct. App. 2015
.”), abrogated on other grounds by Onvoy, Inc. v. Shal, LLC, d 344, 351 (Minn. 2003).
Seagate Technology, LLC v. Western Digital Corp. 834 N.W.2d 555 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Onvoy, Inc. v. SHAL, LLC
Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minnesota 834 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Onvoy, Inc. v. SHAL, LLC
Ram Mutual Insurance Co. v. Rohde 820 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2012
Advisers, Inc., abrogated on other grounds by Onvoy, Inc. v. SHAL, LLC, )); see also Oganov v. Am.
KILCHER v. Dale 784 N.W.2d 866 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Onvoy, Inc. v. SHAL, LLC
Blohm v. Kelly 765 N.W.2d 147 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
See Onvoy, Inc. v. SHAL, LLC, , 353 n. 8 (Minn.2003) ().